Comments on: Supremely wrong

By: RJHall

RJHall — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:08:46 +0000

Just read this interesting passage giving another perspective on Michael Moore’s support of Nader in 2000 and of Kerry in 2004:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/flanders030707.html

“What struck me after watching An Unreasonable Man [a recent documentary about Ralph Nader] was the “sickening” sight of Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and others, in the full flood of liberal panic, retreating from their principled and brave support of Nader in 2000. It was excruciating to watch their cringing backing of Kerry and the Democrats in 2004.

We see Moore’s exhortation to young people in 2000 to vote for their beliefs dwindle down to scolding them in 2004 not to vote “to make yourself feel good for 10 minutes,” rather like a worn-out parent handing the keys to the car to a teenager. Then there is the revolting scene of Moore and Bill Maher kneeling in front of Nader begging him not to run in 2004.

….

We can only hope that Moore will recover from his 2004 “liberal panic attack” and make up for this period of sickness by once again kneeling to Ralph Nader or Nader’s successor, this time begging him or her to run an independent campaign in the interests of working people.”

By: Cory Hinman

Cory Hinman — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 22:45:08 +0000

Certain things that were true then remain true, such as the Gore campaign using fear tactics about the Supremes, saying in effect only daddy AL could protect us from future Scalias and Thomases, just as we’ve been hearing for so long only daddy Dubya can protect us from terrorism; and the former premise has as little basis as the latter, for as Nader pointed out in 2000 Senator Al Gore voted to CONFIRM Scalia and belatedly voted against Thomas, seemimgly when he noted the politcal winds. For most of his career in the senate Gore’s record of pro-life votes closely mirrored that of former Wyoming congressman DICK CHENEY.
Put the blame for this right-ward drift in the Supreme Court where it belongs, with a Democratic party whose right-ward drift since Reagan made Nader attractive.

By: hizzhoner

hizzhoner — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:26:21 +0000

The dilema was whether to continue the Clinton-Gore tactic of “triangulation” which many of us thought was capitulation to the right wing by voting for Gore, or, taking a stand for (alleged) progressive principles….it all seems so silly now….if you can even imagine how incredibly different the world would look today if Gore had been elected.

But some of the comments made about how plausible it was to imagine Bush appointing a true centrist to the Supreme Court show just how stealthy the right wing was in concealing the true nature of their candidate and their agenda. Remember all the talk about the “compassionate Conservative”? The implication was that Bush was really a centrist who would never endorse the radical right wing agenda….”compassionate conservative” was just the first lie he told us…

In some regards I feel the country was sold a “bill of goods” with GEorge W. Bush. It was false advertising right from the giddy-up….nobody who voted for Bush knew they were voting for pre-emptive war…for democratizing the middle East at the point of a gun…for Alito…or Roberts…or (God help us) for the Patriot Act.

Hizzhoner

By: RJHall

RJHall — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:36:45 +0000

I voted for Gore in 2000. But, reading these old quotations again, I don’t think they were SUPREMELY wrong. Sure, wrong about saying that Bush wouldn’t appoint justices that would make things worse or threaten abortion. But how wrong were they really in saying that Gore and a democratic Senate wouldn’t be so much better? I mean, was Ehrenreich wrong to say “Clinton’s man Breyer is one of the most economically conservative Justices around”? Was Hitchens wrong to say “it was the Democratic majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee, not George Bush senior, who made Clarence Thomas a Supreme”? Was MacArthur wrong about “Mr. Clinton’s outrageous assault on the Bill of Rights as promulgated through the “war on drugs,” his signing into law of a crime bill that has crippled the ancient right of habeas corpus, or his steadfast support for the death penalty (positions shared by Mr. Gore)”? Was Cockburn wrong when he said “Would liberal Democrats want a nominee picked by a man with this political record (Gore)? Actually, they couldn’t care less. If they did care, they’d be out campaigning for Ralph Nader”? The most you can say about that stuff is that it is (arguably) irrelevant, not that it was wrong. (Okay, maybe Cockburn was at least exaggerating. And certainly Cockburn’s current writings about catastrophic climate change, e.g. “In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached”, really ARE supremely wrong!) Just because they were wrong about Bush doesn’t mean they were wrong about Gore and the Democrats.

And just because Michael Moore hasn’t made a movie about his having been wrong to campaign for Nader in 2000 doesn’t mean he hasn’t said that, like when he was campaigning for Kerry in 2004. (In 2004, he said that now the Democrats weren’t the same Democrats they had been in 2000, and even Al Gore wasn’t the same Al Gore as in 2000. I’d agree with that last part, but what the Democrats did on May 24, 2007, seems to show that the first part WAS wrong!) Even in 2000, just before the election, when Moore was making a last-minute campaign speech in Florida, he said that it was easy for him (Moore) to vote for Nader since New York would definitely go for Gore anyway, but since Florida was close they probably shouldn’t vote for Nader there!

By: iowametal76

iowametal76 — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 16:21:05 +0000

Hey, people make mistakes, people make incorrect predictions. However, as a non-famous, non-wealthy, regular shmoe, I would really, really like to just hear those folks (especially the higher-profile ones - I’m looking at you, Mike) admit to just how off the mark they were. These are people with powerful public voices and in whose opinions many of us place a lot of stock. Mike, I listened to you. I believed what you said. I looked up to you. And I still do. But please, come clean and admit you were so very wrong on this. That - the ability to step outside the shadow of one’s ego and admit to fallibility - is one of the most important things that seperate all of Us from all of Them. You have such a uniquely powerful voice, and have earned the respect of so many of us. Please, please do not tarnish that. We need you. Please continue to take the high road. If you don’t, everything you’ve done since 1989 is all for naught.
And jesus, dude, lose some weight. You looked great a couple years ago, wtf happened?? We want and need you to be healthy and happy. Come on man, take care of yourself. I’m from the Midwest too, and I eat salad and get lots of exercise. You can do it too.

Barb - meh, I never really was a huge fan of your columns anyway. Nothing personal, it’s just… well, when you’re a longtime subscriber to The Progressive and you have also Molly’s column in there… well, you get the idea. Anyway, come clean or whatever.

Hitch - I dunno, just say you were drunk at the time. Pretty sure that’d work for you as an alibi…

Mr. Cockburn - Once I’m done laughing at your name I’ll try and… oh never mind. Hey! You know what else is funny? Farts.

Mr. MacArthur - I don’t even know who you are. But you sound like a real cockburn.

By: Larkrise

Larkrise — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 06:17:11 +0000

These are people who should have known better. Shame on them. Now we are stuck with far-right fanatics making disreputable decisions worthy of all true zealots and crackpots. It didnt take an Einstein to see it coming. 5 fanatic Justices are determined to return this country to the Dark Ages. Just when you think it can’t get worse, it does. Our government is broken. I hope it can recover, but with another year and a half of insanity, all bets are off.